Without a doubt, the current healthcare reform effort is about controlling expanding medical costs. Also, without any doubt, measures in the House version of a bill (H.R. 3200 section 1233) address end of life consultations. As liberal commentators Charles Lane and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post point out, the only reason why such language would be included would be about controlling costs. See here and here.

This has ignited a firestorm of controversy with almost everyone jumping into the fray, from Sarah Palin’s “death panels” to President Obama’s wandering sophistry on the issue. Section 1233 is definitely controversial, and apparently those behind the language have no problem with either voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.

In the larger scope of things, there are two critical issues to be aware of:

1. The baby boomers have moved into retirement, with the initial boomers starting to approach the years where critical health care will be required. Some claim roughly 70% of total US healthcare costs are consumed by those in our population in their final years of life. (Never mind that particular expense shows up as income for someone else, such as medical jobs, services and product sales.)

2. The current Democratic leadership backs abortion 100%, due to it’s core constituencies demands and the lobbying of the abortion industry. For all practical purposes what’s being proposed is not just healthcare for the elderly, but also FOCA – the Freedom of Choice Act, to eliminate our youngest. (In their eyes, abortion costs less than birth, is far more repeatable, profitable, manageable and cost efficient.) And we know where Barack Obama stands on these matters.

So here we are.

From the Democratic perspective “controlling costs” can be done at either end – the elderly can be euthanized, and the unborn can be aborted. In either case, the option to kill is much less expensive than providing humane treatment.

It’s time for the pro-life cause to demand a national discussion on the immeasurable value of each human life.

Because the boomers are scared to death that the seeds they sowed about the expendability of human life, (evidenced with almost 50 million human beings being aborted) will be paid back with compassionate killing.

There is no better time to discuss this than right now, when America’s focus is on this issue.

And “controlling costs” is nothing more than a face-saving euphemism for controlling lives.

Human Rights abortion, euthanasia, immeasurable value

By way of (Prolifer)ation’s on Jill Stanek’s blog, Big Blue Wave touched on how Reuters works to govern the abortion debate via their Handbook on Journalism:

abortion

Unless quoting someone, refer to aborted foetuses rather than unborn babies. Describe those campaigning for a woman’s right to have an abortion as abortion rights campaigners and those campaigning against abortion rights as anti-abortion campaigners. Terms such as pro-choice, pro-life and pro-abortion are open to dispute and should be avoided.

Neutral? Accurate? Or divisive? Christ makes an interesting statement in Matthew 12:30 when he confronted the Pharisees:

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Language is not neutral. Those at Reuters chose their language, as we all do. One cannot refer to one group as advocating rights without referring to those diametrically opposed to that position. And “anti” is almost always considered a negative. Absent such distinction, there is no news.

Still, both sides trumpet rights, including Suzanne of Big Blue Wave, who describes pro-life efforts as advocating “fetal rights”.

Yet, framing the debate solely upon rights misses a very important point. In her comments at Jill’s, Christina Dunigan of RealChoice raises what is so often overlooked by both sides: parental responsibilities. We tend to think of rights as a passive, positive, valuable property, inherent in our being, while we consider responsibilities as negative onerous duties demanded by someone else.

Notice in Mt 12:30 the two parts of Jesus’ statement. Within the passage, the Pharisees right to be guardians of the faith requires them to uphold the faith by gathering more disciples, not dividing the house. One cannot receive the benefits of rights without being accountable for the responsibilities inherent in those rights. People forget that the Declaration of Independence is truly about securing the rights of all, by being responsible to each other. Like assets and liabilities, you cannot have rights without responsibilities.

But what responsibility does a news organization have regarding language? Reuters is far from neutral. Their highest priority regarding abortion is to immediately depersonalize it by using the word fetus – Latin for “offspring” – a child. Notice it’s past-tense, so their first focus is the aborted remains of a child. When viewing a photo of such remains, how would one naturally describe it using sixth grade language? If you weren’t told the age – would you really use the word “fetus” to describe a recognizably shredded baby? So the motive is deliberate depersonalization of a human being.

Now Reuters is nothing but a piece of paper in some government filing cabinet, a faceless, impersonal corporate entity. Would the human beings working for Reuters seriously object to being depersonalized? Or have they done so already by resorting to propaganda language on such an important issue instead of speaking plainly?

Always bring it back to what it means to be fully human, and never forget the responsibilities that come with the rights. No amount of depersonalization will ever change the human nature of the unborn child. And for those at Reuters, if you can’t own up to a responsible use of language in discussing this issue – then you have no right to call yourself the press.

Human Rights abortion

I provided this testimony on June 4th at the RI State House.

Honorable Chairman and Esteemed Members of the H.E.W. Committee,

Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Chris Arsenault, and although I am a board member of CareNet, Rhode Island, a pregnancy resource center equipped with ultrasound, I’m here as a private citizen to present testimony in support of both H-5334, (aka “A Women’s Right to Know Bill”), and H-5555, (aka “The Fetal Ultrasound Bill”).

I’m a firm believer that just as this particular review process desires to see the full scope and consequences of the proposed legislation, and takes the necessary steps to reveal that information, so too does every person desire to understand the full extent of medical consequences for life-impacting surgeries.

I’m offering the patient’s view on knowing.

As a man, I can’t get pregnant, but I had hernia surgery a few years ago that sheds light on this legislation. Though the surgeon discussed with me and said he performed two different repair methods, I selected one based on my best understanding at that time. Through a mix-up the surgeon used the other method. Yes, my hernia was repaired, but the result was a longer, more painful recovery.  Later, my own research showed the invasive procedure I initially chose was considerably more dangerous than the plug method performed on me. My post-op conversation with the surgeon clarified things, but revealed critical information I wish I knew at the initial consultation.

Each patient’s understanding of consequences for medical decisions requires timely, accurate and high quality information provided in easy to understand ways. This simplicity and clarity is crucial for patients making critical life impacting decisions. Such information should be free from any medical provider conflict of interest.  We need to know – would we consent if we knew other information?

This question raises two important considerations:

• Both availability of information pertinent to our decision, and our understanding of it as patients, changes as we learn.
• We obtain second opinions on critical medical conditions to verify diagnosis, affirm course of treatment and to avoid any potential provider conflict of interest.

During consultations medical professionals don’t always convey critical information for decision making in ways patients immediately grasp, because half the problem is on the patient’s end.  What are they paying attention to? What do they consider important vs what is being offered/suggested?  Learning usually leads to more, often better, questions.

As for second opinions, I later learned the method I initially chose would take almost 6-8 times longer than the 10-12 minutes needed for the plug method.  Overall, it was a more complex, expensive procedure.  And, though qualified, the surgeon’s discomfort doing that procedure, (and the risk of medical liability and death), was much greater.  As it was, he performed 3 other hernia plug surgeries scheduled immediately after mine. It appears there was a conflict of interest between what I desired and what was most valuable for the surgeon.

Abortion is much more consequential than a hernia repair. The fetus is the woman’s offspring – her child. While most everyone knows this, the average person may not know the gestational development of the child enough to fully understand medical risks, or comprehend the emotional health impacts associated with permanently denying the mothering of that child.

With abortion, there is an inherent conflict of interest between the life of the child and the motivations and purposes of the abortion provider with regard to the mother.  My discussions with many post-abortive women (and men) indicate few considered this in the midst of their decision making.

Through CareNet’s reports and personal testimonies I’ve learned of the enormous positive impacts of Limited Obstetrical Ultrasound. One angry abortion demanding young man, while viewing the ultrasound, found he already was a father. He broke down and cried.  I’ve met mothers whose first glimpse of their child’s humanity came through ultrasound imaging. I’ve seen the smiling faces of children who, had it not been for that ultrasound, and their mother’s knowing, would have been shredded into pieces.

The government’s responsibility is to protect the interests of patients where the consequences are greatest, and must fairly balance patients interests with those who provide medical care.  Our purpose in legislation is not to amend the past, but to safeguard and secure the future, not only for those who walk into clinics, but also for those yet to be born.

I urge each member of the H.E.W. Committee to visit CareNet to learn more about how it provides critical, timely and complete information on a personal basis to those facing the irreversible consequences of life-impacting decisions.

Would we consent if we had more information?

Would we consent if we really knew?

The wisest advice is : First – do no harm.

Human Rights abortion, patients, right to know, ultrasound

How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion.

In abortion debates, some concede the pre-born are human beings, but they’ll say:

Abortion is justifiable, because the mother has the right to control how her own body is used.

Such arguments justify abortion by asserting that the mother’s right to her bodily autonomy is greater than her own child’s right to life during gestation, or even later.

All bodily autonomy arguments play on Dependency. They deny the intrinsic value of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) that the responsibility to be morally humane can have exceptions. They subvert the intrinsic value of the mother and the definition of motherhood by insisting that an act of violence against an innocent dependent human being is moral, humane and beneficial.

BioSLED Response: “Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?”

Who receives the benefits of the violence?

After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?

Reasoning: Show there are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. This pits a person’s understanding of self-determination up against their own victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.

Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.

Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.

Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.

So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree. There are no exceptions to being humane with dependents.

For Legalists: Legalists place functionality above morality by falsely assuming human rights are granted by a government. The documented, legally demonstrable view is that human rights are endowed by a Creator (meaning they are intrinsic) and merely defended by a government. Some claim gestation is a special right granted to the pre-born by the mother but this rejects the notion that life is a right granted from outside of man’s control, and rejects the very process of motherhood by which all humans live. So it condones the use of violence against the very nature of human life itself.

Another variation, pregnancy as slavery, is invalid because pregnancy is a humane, survivable natural good, beneficial to all of humanity, while murder of posterity is not. Consent to intercourse was free-will consent to a dependent human being, as that is the natural purpose of intercourse. Demanding one uphold their responsibilities to other human beings, such as respecting the life you participated in creating, is a far cry from imposing situations upon human beings who had no choice in the outcome – which is precisely what those who demand abortion do to the unborn human beings.

So legally, the government is failing to uphold the very human rights they are incorporated to defend.

Human Rights abortion, autonomy, bioSLED

How to handle personhood arguments using BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

In abortion debates, one often hears:

“Abortion is okay because the fetus is not a person.”

Non-personhood arguments play on Level of Development. They deny the intrinsic nature of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. They justify abortion by asserting a “person” is not present at the time of an abortion by defining what it means to be a person.

BioSLED Response: “Can you prove to me you are a person without using your physical body in any way?” The other person won’t be able to.

Reasoning: Self-awareness doesn’t require communicating your own awareness to others. Yet body presence indicates you exist – your body is your means of communication. A test for intangible personhood which ignores the human body is an invalid test, because no natural human being can pass it.

Science tells us the pre-born are human beings, based on numerous established facts, such as embryological development, uniqueness of DNA and that life comes from life – the Law of Biogenesis. After amphimixis humans exist – they have human flesh and blood. Given a proper environment and nourishment they thrive.

Demanding the pre-born communicate at an advanced level of development is unfair because it smuggles in the idea that communication only occurs according to a presumed definition provided by the abortion-choicer.

The abortion-choicer imposes a conditional test of self-awareness they cannot pass, and assumes their own level of development is sufficient. So abortion-choicers discriminate against the pre-born due to their level of development, but use their own level of development as a definition of their humanity.

Placing the abortion-choicer back at the same level of development as the pre-born should alter their perspective, if they are intellectually honest, on what it means to be a human person.

For the Philosophers: Ontological vs Epistemilogical Statements
Ontological thoughts have to do with the metaphysical – existence/being/nature. Epistemological has to do with knowing – beliefs, opinions etc. We shouldn’t confuse these terms or switch their meanings. Descartes, no matter how much thinking he did, did not exist due to his thinking. He existed prior to his conscious thoughts and that existence was a pre-requisite for his ability to communicate his beliefs. “I think, therefore I am” is putting Decartes before the horse.

If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

Squiggling in the word “choice” allows people a conscientious backdoor to escape.

When someone says “choice” they need to be asked – what is the result of an abortion-choice?

Because the only factual answer is: a dead human being.

And birth-choice terminates pregnancy with a live baby.

If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. [Zech 12:3 NIV]

Do you care about Israel?   Are you friend or foe?

What about God’s commandment to bless and not curse Israel?

Recently I came across four fascinating pieces I feel compelled to share.

Sandi Shoshani is doing some amazing work in changing lives and saving lives throughout Israel. As Director of Be’ad Chaim (which means Pro Life in Hebrew) – a pregnancy resource center network in Israel, she has a perspective on abortion and it’s impact on world politics you seriously need to consider.

Anyone who honestly says abortion can’t hurt population demographics and the balance of the nations should think twice.

In 2008 – Israel had 140,000 live births and somewhere between 40,000 – 50,000 abortions. Since their inception, Israel has collectively aborted 2 million when their population is only 7 million total today. Had they not aborted their children, Israel would not have a problem facing the challenges of a growing Palestinian population. Abortion matters in the life and death struggles of nations.

Considering that point, take a look at what Michael B. Oren at Commentary Magazine offers regarding the very existence of the modern Jewish state of Israel (or it’s potential demise) with Seven Existential Threats.

And realizing that Israel is not alone in this struggle, Mark Steyn has an excellent article at Commentary Magazine where things are going with radical Islam, how demographics figure into the weakening of Europe and the growing rise of Islam.

Lastly – take a look at this:

Abortion has consequences that reach beyond the personal, impacting the nations.

When calling out the Pope for his trespasses – will Israel admit their own auto-genocide trespass?

Perspective abortion, end-times, Israel

Found a great comment on Yourish.com from David Foster that made so much sense. Progressives (liberals) view morals as properties of objects and not people. So for instance, nuclear weapons are immoral, but not people who seek to use them. Guns are immoral, but not people who shoot others. Bombs are evil, but not those who employ them.

Fascinating theory.

How would this apply to abortion?

The answer is obvious, but it took me a moment, because I don’t even think like that.

The immoral “object” is the baby.

Wow. I’d love to test this out with a survey.

What do you think – does it fit real-world observations?

Morality abortion

Jill Stanek covered a new Mother’s Day fundraising campaign by Planned Parenthood, but now she indicates there’s been some pressure being applied to Judy Blume in this article:

Backlash against children’s book author’s support of Planned Parenthood

Frankly, I think this is a completely planned controversial promotion on their part.

I’ll share what I wrote in an email to some friends upon seeing the initial Planned Parenthood promo letter and then reflecting upon it:

Like the Miss USA pageant, which lacked ratings and national exposure, but sure found a lot of free press with a controversy, I’m getting the feeling both Judy Blume and PPA needed a quick pick-me up in the publicity dept. and felt controversy would deliver it.

Upon reflection it seems that way.

“Forever” appears to be a publicity piece written as a story to be sold to promote “family planning clinics” and the pill right after the Roe opinion came out. My guess is, if the pro-life community makes a big deal over PPA’s fundraiser, we’ll be inadvertently promoting Blume’s trash to a new audience who will want to know why the books are so bad. Clever marketing tactic. (or do I overrate the pro-life influence?)

I’ve been noticing this parasitic pattern ever since I heard a Canadian band called Mes Aieux sing a song called “Degeneration” It was a big hit in Canada, and a lot of pro-life people purchased the song and album. The band waited and waited until the song played out and started going down in the charts until they corrected the pro-life advocacy of the song. Turns out the band was distinctly pro-abortion. They got the money, and despite the crystal clear implications of the lyrics, denied it had a pro-life message. They gained at the expense of the generous Canadian pro-lifers.

The key point – the devil will lie to gain the power of this world – money. I’d like to learn how to spot parasitic promos and avoid giving them any traction whatsoever.

We need to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

It now appears Cecile Richards is simply stirring the cauldron and hoping to inflame enough people to generate tons of donations.

What would be the best way to combat this?

Perspective abortion, strategy

Lila Rose exposes yet another Planned Parenthood covering up alleged statutory rape in TN in a pattern that is not isolated to one state, but now has been exposed at 6 clinics and multiple states.

There clearly have been violations of the law requiring reporting of the statutory rape, so the truth of the situation should be confirmed by authorities.

So in these exposés:

• Does respective state case law dismiss prosecutorial actions due to journalistic exposure?
• Can charges be filed against AG officials for failing to uphold the law?
• To what extent is the state judiciary responsible for guardianship actions?

Although failure to report statutory rape is serious, a related problem is being revealed by Lila and her team at LiveAction.

Girls are sent to judges without explicit medical referral. For instance Lila is told to call on her own to obtain a judicial by-pass. Yet, with the state assuming the guardian role, the judicial by-pass hinges entirely upon the testimony of the 14 year old girl, without confirmation of pregnancy or legal determination of the father. Most states have laws stating pregnancy is a medical diagnosis made only by a doctor. How can a judge make a determination without depending upon a chain of responsible medical authority? After all, the judge is not a doctor. It seems sound medical and legal evidence is unnecessary for serious legal action. Is the judiciary breaking the law?

When medical agencies collect data, they are acting on a doctor’s behalf, thus establishing a chain of medical/legal liability. In guardianship situations, these agencies are also acting as agents of the courts because the authority over the child is transferred due to their discovery. PPA’s tactic of blaming it on employees appears to be legally non-binding.

With the financial motive/ conflict of interest in sending the girl for the bypass, there is an incentive to not investigate the cause of the pregnancy, because it may change the business dynamic if statutory rape is discovered.

If the pregnancy was the result of statutory rape, and an abortion was performed with a judicial bypass, then the state itself was complicit in destroying the very evidence of the crime!

Judicial by-passes are inherently complicit in existing abuse and encourage further abuse of little girls.

Human Rights abortion, justice, rape